No. 07-0557/AR.U.S. v. Israel J.
HERNANDEZ.CCA 20041051.On consideration of the petition for grant of
review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal
Appeals, it
is ordered that said petition is hereby granted, and that the decision
of the
United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed. [See also
ORDERS
GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

Misc.
No. 07-8018/AF.Michael D. MURPHY, Petitioner v. Major General Robert Smolen,
Convening
Authority and Colonel Bruce Ambrose, Investigating Officer, Respondents.CCA 2007-03.On consideration of the petition for
extraordinary relief and Petitioner’s motion to stay proceeding, it is
ordered
that said motion to stay proceedings is hereby denied, and that said
petition
for extraordinary relief is hereby denied.

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

No.
07-0661/AR.U.S. v. John C. SILVA.CCA 20060138.Appellant's
motion to extend time to file the
supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to August 27,
2007.

WHETHER
THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT THE MILITARY JUDGE DID NOT
COMMIT PLAIN
ERROR WHEN HE PERMITTED THE TRIAL COUNSEL TO ASK HYPOTHETICAL VOIR DIRE
QUESTIONS THAT PRESENTED THE MEMBERS WITH SUCH DETAILED FACTS ABOUT
APPELLANT'S
CASE THAT THE TRIAL COUNSEL WAS IN EFFECT COMMITTING THE MEMBERS TO
RETURN A
VERDICT OF GUILTY PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE, ARGUMENT, AND
INSTRUCTIONS.

Briefs
will be filed under Rule 25.

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

No.
07-0237/NA.U.S. v. Eddie A.
ALMEJO.CCA 200501051.Appellant's
motion to extend time to file a
response granted, up to and including August 3, 2007.

MANDATES ISSUED

No.
06-0591/AR.U.S. v. Harvey A.
GARDINIER II.CCA 20020427.

UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY
JOURNAL

No.
07-201

Thursday,
July 26, 2007

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED

No.
07-0727/AR.U.S.
v. Tammi D. TAYLOR.CCA 20050673.

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

Misc. No.
07-8020/NA.Javier MORENO,
Appellant v.Paul H. MCCONELL, Military
Judge, LieutenantColonel, U.S.
Marine Corps, Appellee.CCA
200100715.On
consideration of the writ-appeal petition and Appellant’s motion to
stay
proceedings, it is ordered that said motion to stay proceedings is
hereby
denied, and that said writ-appeal petition is denied.

No.
06-0914/AF.U.S.
v. Robert D. TIPPIT.CCA
35624.Appellant's motions to
submit document and to submit supplemental petition for reconsideration
are
denied.

No.
07-0585/AR.U.S.
v. Jonathan L. HENSLEY.CCA
20070022.Appellant's
second motion to extend time
to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, but only up to and including August 14,
2007, and absent
extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be
granted in
this case.

No.
06-0870/AR.U.S.
v. Alexander N. WILSON.CCA
20040227.Appellant’s
second motion to extend time
to file an answer to Appellant’s brief is granted, up
to and including July 31, 2007,
and no further extension of time will
be granted in this case.

UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY
JOURNAL

No.
07-200

Wednesday,
July 25, 2007

APPEALS - SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS

No. 04-0336/AF.U.S. v. Bradley
K. RHODES.CCA 34697.On consideration of the petition for grant of
review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal
Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted, and the
decision
of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is
affirmed.[See also
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

No. 07-0512/AF.U.S. v. Michael
D.A. RANGEL.CCA 36382.On consideration of the petition for grant of
review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal
Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted, and the
decision
of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed,
and that
the last 11 lines of page 45, pages 46-48, and the first 8 lines of
page 49 of
the MRE 412 hearing transcript, along with Appellate Exhibits VII and
VIII are
ordered sealed and not to be opened or disseminated absent an order of
the
Court.[See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

WHETHER
APPELLANT'S GUILTY PLEA TO INDECENT ASSAULTAS
A PRINCIPAL WAS IMPROVIDENT WHERE THE PROVIDENCE
INQUIRY DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT APPELLANT POSSESSED THE SPECIFIC INTENT
TO
GRATIFY HIS LUST OR SEXUAL DESIRES.

and
the following issue specified by the Court:

WHETHER
APPELLANT'S GUILTY PLEA TO DISTRIBUTING MARIJUANA WAS PROVIDENT WHEN
APPELLANT
TOLD THE MILITARY JUDGE THAT THE SUBSTANCE HE DISTRIBUTED WAS NOT MARIJUANA.

In
each of the above-listed cases, the motion filed by Lieutenant Richard
H.
McWilliams to withdraw as appellate defense counsel is granted.

No.
07-0173/AR.U.S. v. Darnyell R.
RHOADES.CCA 20040109.Appellant's
second motion to extend time to file brief
granted, but only up to and including July 30, 2007,
and no further extension of time will be granted in
this case.

No.
07-0642/AR.U.S. v. William J.
MENDOZA.CCA 20060717.Appellant's
motion to extend time to file the
supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to August 20,
2007.

No.
07-0644/AR.U.S. v. Benjamin
BOGANY, Jr.CCA 20050387.Appellant's
motion to extend time to file the
supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to August 20,
2007.

UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY
JOURNAL

No.
07-198

Monday,
July 23, 2007

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED

No.
04-0465/AF.U.S. v. Terry A.
FLETCHER.CCA 34945.*

No.
07-0718/AF.U.S. v. Robert A.
JOHNS.CCA 36406.

No.
07-0719/AR.U.S. v. Michael G.
RHOADES.CCA 20050592.

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS

Misc.
No. 07-8020/NA.Javier MORENO, Appellant v. Paul H. MCCONNELL, Military Judge,
Lieutenant
Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps, Appellee.CCA 200100715.Notice
is hereby given that a writ-appeal petition for review of the decision
of the
United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals on
application for
extraordinary relief was filed under Rule 27(b) on this date.

_____________________

* Second petition
in this case.

UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY
JOURNAL

No.
07-197

Friday,
July 20, 2007

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

No.
07-0378/MC.U.S.
v. Angel E. GUILAMO.CCA 200401094.

No.
07-0508/MC.U.S.
v. Allen S. HARRIS.CCA 200500452.

No. 07-0639/MC.U.S.
v. David M. BROOKS.CCA 200501266.

In
each of the above-listed cases, the motion filed by Lieutenant Richard
H.
McWilliams to withdraw as appellate defense counsel is granted.

No.
07-0571/NA.U.S.
v. Robert M. SHAW.CCA 200600728. Appellant's second
motion to extend time to file the supplement to the
petition for grant of review granted, but
only up to and including August 7, 2007, and absent
extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time
will be granted in this case.

No. 07-0651/AR.U.S.
v. Brian L. WHISMAN.CCA 20060877. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the
supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to August 20, 2007.

Misc. No.
07-8019/NA.Darryl S. PHILLIPS,
Petitioner v. United States, Respondent.CCA 200400865.Notice is hereby given that a petition for
extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus was filed
under
Rule 27(a) on May 29, 2007, and placed on the docket this date.On consideration thereof, said petition is
denied.

No.
07-0553/NA.U.S. v. Christopher
A. BOLSINS.CCA 200602408.Appellant's
motion to extend time to file a
brief granted, up to and including
August 14, 2007, and absent
extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be
granted in
this case.

No.
07-0636/AR.U.S. v. David P.
BARTLETT, Jr.CCA 20021244.Appellant's
motion to extend time to file the
supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to August 16,
2007.

No.
06-0908/NA.U.S. v. Gilbert T.
ALLENDE.CCA 200001872.

No.
07-0241/MC.U.S. v. Thomas H.
KING.CCA 200401338.

No.
07-0452/MC.U.S. v. Mark A. HURST.CCA 200401383.

No.
07-0510/NA.U.S. v. Shaun J.
GORSKEY.CCA 200301580.

In each of the above-listed cases, the motion
filed by Lieutenant Richard H. McWilliams to withdraw as appellate
defense
counsel is granted.

UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY
JOURNAL

No.
07-194

Tuesday,
July 17, 2007

CERTIFICATES FOR
REVIEW FILED

No.
07-5003/AF.U.S. v. Demond
WEBB.CCA 2007-01.The Judge Advocate General, U.S. Air Force,
requests that action be taken on the following issues:

WHETHER
THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HER DISCRETION IN GRANTING THE DEFENSE MOTION
FOR NEW
TRIAL

WHETHER
PRIOR TO AUTHENTICATION THE MILITARY JUDGE HAS THE AUTHORITY IN A
POST-TRIAL
ARTICLE 39(a) SESSION TO SET ASIDE A CONVICTION AND ORDER A NEW TRIAL
AS A
REMEDY FOR A DISCOVERY VIOLATION DISCOVERED POST-TRIAL

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

No.
07-0206/AR.U.S. v. Richard M.
ACOSTA.CCA 20030706.

No.
07-0226/AR.U.S. v. Matthew J.
PETTY.CCA 20050120.

No.
07-0283/AF.U.S. v. Dontaine A.
SWANN.CCA 36260.

No.
07-0352/MC.U.S. v. Eric P. MALOY.CCA 200600979.

No.
07-0366/NA.U.S. v. Gerrick L.
HENDERSON.CCA 200501518.

No.
07-0378/MC.U.S. v. Angel E.
GUILAMO.CCA 200401094.

No.
07-0462/AF.U.S. v. Brian A.
MALONE.CCA 36666.

No.
07-0484/AR.U.S. v. Julio C.
SALCEDO.CCA 20040316.

No.
07-0528/AF.U.S. v. Jacob M.
CONNOR.CCA S31158.

No.
07-0542/AR.U.S. v. Steven A.
PARKER.CCA 20041031.

No.
07-0543/AR.U.S. v. Steven J.
MELVIN.CCA 20060208.

No.
07-0562/AR.U.S. v. Charley L.
HOOSER.CCA 20050073.

No.
07-0570/AR.U.S. v. Jeffrey
WRIGHT, Jr.CCA 20060468.

No.
07-0578/AF.U.S. v. Richard E.
WILSON.CCA S31050.

No.
07-0609/AR.U.S. v. Richard P.
CHARTIER.CCA 20060876.

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

No.
07-0710/AR.U.S. v. Katherine B.
JASHINSKI.CCA 20060528.

No.
07-0711/MC.U.S. v. Woodrow R.
STRALEY.CCA 200602399.

No.
07-0712/MC.U.S. v. Hubert A.
LUCAS.CCA 200600564.

MANDATES ISSUED

No.
06-0474/AF.U.S. v. Ashontia K.
HARROW.CCA 35257.

No.
06-0567/AF.U.S. v. David A.
LEEDY.CCA 35939.

No.
06-0857/AF.U.S. v. Kevin D.
BROWN.CCA 36195.

UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY
JOURNAL

No.
07-193

Monday,
July 16, 2007

APPEALS - SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS

No. 05-0503/AF.U.S. v. Cornelius
T. IRVIN.CCA 35167.On consideration of the petition for grant of
review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal
Appeals, it is ordered that review of the supplemental issues is
granted as
follows:

WHETHER
APPELLANT WAS IMPROPERLY PLACED ON EXCESS APPELLATE LEAVE AND DENIED
PAY AND
ALLOWANCES IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 76a, UCMJ, WHEN HIS SENTENCE TO CONFINEMENT WAS NOT COMPLETED OR REMITTED AND
HE WAS FORCED TO FULFILL CONDITIONS OF MANDATORY SUPERVISION UPON HIS
RELEASE
FROM CONFINEMENT.

WHETHER
THE AIR FORCE CLEMENCY AND PAROLE BOARD INCREASED THE SEVERITY OF
APPELLANT'S
SENTENCE IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 55, UCMJ, AND THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT
WHEN IT
FORCED APPELLANT TO FULFILL CONDITIONS OF MANDATORY SUPERVISION THAT
ARE NOT
AUTHORIZED BY THE UCMJ.

THE
IMPOSITION OF CONDITIONS OF MANDATORY SUPERVISION ON APPELLANT VIOLATES
THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE BECAUSE THE MILITARY JUDGE DID NOT ANNOUNCE A PERIOD OF
MANDATORY SUPERVISED RELEASE OR ANY OF ITS CONDITIONS AS PART OF THE
SENTENCE.

The
decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is
affirmed.SeeUnited States v.
Lovett, 63 M.J. 211
(C.A.A.F. 2006); United States v.
Pena, 64 M.J. 259
(C.A.A.F. 2007).[See also ORDERS GRANTING
PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

No. 06-0427/AR.U.S. v. Darrell
L. LAWRENCE.CCA 20030471.On further consideration of the granted
issue, 64 M.J. 86 (C.A.A.F. 2006), it is ordered that the decision of
the
United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is hereby affirmed.

No. 06-0502/AF.U.S. v. Doncosta
E. SEAWELL.CCA 35531.On further consideration of the granted
issues, 64 M.J. 317 (C.A.A.F. 2006), it is ordered that the decision of
the United States Air Force
Court of Criminal Appeals is hereby affirmed as to the findings, but
set aside
as to the sentence.The record is
returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for remand to
the Court
of Criminal Appeals for consideration of the following issue with
respect to
the sentence:

The
remand in this case is based on United States v. Pena, 64 M.J.
259 (C.A.A.F.
2007), a case in which I did not participate.There is a potential reading of the Pena decision that
gives me
pause with respect to the threshold question of jurisdiction.

Not so long ago the Supreme Court
reaffirmed a fundamental principle of law:this Court’s jurisdiction is “strictly circumscribed” to “act
only with
respect to the findings and sentence as approved by the convening
authority and
as affirmed or set aside as incorrect in law by the Court of Criminal
Appeals.”Clinton
v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 531,
534 (1999) (citing Article 67(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ), 10
U.S.C. § 867(c) (2000)).In addressing the limits
of this Court’s jurisdiction, the Supreme Court further recognized the
power of
this Court “to compel adherence to its own judgment” when a “military
authority
attempted to alter a judgment by revising a court-martial finding or
sentence
to increase the punishment, contrary to the specific provisions of the
UCMJ.”Goldsmith, 526 U.S. at 536.

In light of this precedent, it is unclear
to me whether and how this Court has jurisdiction under Article 67(c),
UCMJ, to
take action with regard to something that is not itself part of the
findings or
adjudged sentence or an alteration of the judgment.Goldsmith, 526 U.S. at 536.On the one hand, Pena appears to
recognize this limitation.64 M.J. at
266 (focusing on whether there is “an increase in the punishment of
confinement
adjudged by the court-martial”).On the
other hand, Pena also suggests that this Court has jurisdiction
to
review “post-trial confinement and release conditions on direct appeal[,] . . . limited to the impact of such
conditions on
the findings and the sentence.”64 M.J. at 264.I am
concerned that this latter statement may be read to sweep more broadly
than our
legislative mandate.

A brief review of the Mandatory Supervised Release
Program (MSRP) that Pena complained of heightens the reservation I have
about
the breadth of this statement.Pena
complained
that:

he was unable to
stop in
Colorado to ship his household goods to Illinois, that he incurred a
ten dollar
per week expenditure for transportation to the sex offender treatment
program,
that he was required to attend Alcoholic Anonymous classes three times
a week
at night and sex offender treatment classes once a week during the day,
that he
had various other appointments and a requirement to give a urine sample
on
short notice every two weeks, and that the conditions of mandatory
supervision
left him unable to find work to support his family.

Id.

I do not see how
these complaints involve an
alteration of the adjudged sentence.This Court held that Pena failed to show that his “burdens
[were] such
that they resulted in an increase in the punishment of confinement
adjudged by
the court-martial.”Id. at 266.But that statement by this Court could be
read as support for the proposition that determining whether the MSRP
results
in an increase in the punishment of confinement is not limited to an
actual
alteration of the adjudged sentence, but includes assessments “about
the
personal, psychological, economic, and family impact” of a MSRP on the
party
“appealing the sentence.”Id.It is unclear to me how social, family, and
psychological issues constitute an alteration of an adjudged sentence.It is also unclear to me how we have the
power to review collateral consequences of the MSRP, a program
administered by
executive branch officials on the Clemency and Parole Board.SeeGoldsmith, 526 U.S. at 536.

It
remains to be seen whether my reservation is warranted.Regardless, a summary remand with no briefing
on the jurisdictional issue is not the proper vehicle to address the
issue.Consequently, I join the Court’s
disposition here today.But I am open to
revisiting the issue, as necessary, in an appropriate case.

Upon
careful consideration of certain proposed changes to the Rules of
Practice and Procedure,
United
States
Court of Appeals for the Armed
Forces, which were presented to and reviewed by the Rules Advisory
Committee of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
and
thereafter published in the Federal Register for comment, it is, by the
Court
this 4th day of June, 2007

ORDERED:

That
effective August 1, 2007, Rule 24 is amended as provided in the
attachment to
this order, except that the provisions of Rule 24(f)(1)(D)-(F) will
take effect
on July 1, 2008.During the period from
August 1, 2007 to July 1, 2008, compliance with the provisions of Rule
24(f)(1)(D)-(F) may be accomplished by including a list of items stated
in
those sections to which appellant/petitioner
and appellee/respondentwish to
direct the Court’s attention.

For the Court,

/s/William
A. DeCicco

Clerk
of the Court

UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY
JOURNAL

No.
07-192

Friday,
July 13, 2007

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

No.
07-0701/CG.U.S. v. Carl T.
BRIDGES.CCA 1233.

No.
07-0702/NA.U.S. v. Richard A.
CETINA.CCA 200602279.

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

No.
06-0532/NA.U.S. v. Hector A.
COLEMAN.CCA 200101009.Appellant's
second motion to extend time to file the
supplement to the
petition for grant of review granted, but
only up to and including August 3, 2007, and absent
extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time
will be granted in this case.

No.
07-0237/NA.U.S. v. Eddie A.
ALMEJO.CCA 200501051.Appellee's
motion to extend date to file an
answer to Appellant's supplement to the petition for grant of review
granted.

No.
07-0544/AR.U.S. v. Kevin L.
McILWAIN.CCA 20040095.Appellant's
second motion to extend time to file the
supplement to the
petition for grant of review granted, but
only up to and including August 3, 2007, and absent
extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time
will be granted in this case.

No.
07-0633/AR.U.S. v. Antonio
CABRERA.CCA 20040453.Appellant's
motion to extend time to file the
supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to August 13,
2007.

WHETHER
R.C.M. 705(c)(2)(D) PERMITS PRETRIAL MISCONDUCT TO FORM THE BASIS FOR A
WITHDRAWAL FROM THE SENTENCING LIMITATION OF THE PRETRIAL AGREEMENT
WHEN
PRETRIAL MISCONDUCT, BY ITS VERY NATURE, CANNOT FALL WITHIN ANY PERIOD
OF
SUSPENSION AS REQUIRED BY R.C.M. 1109 SINCE THERE IS NO SENTENCE PRIOR
TO
TRIAL.

WHETHER
APPELLANT'S PLEAS WERE IMPROVIDENT BECAUSE THE MILITARY JUDGE FAILED TO
ENSURE
THAT APPELLANT UNDERSTOOD THE MEANING AND EFFECT OF THE MISCONDUCT
PROVISIONS
IN THE PRETRIAL AGREEMENT, AND THE CONVENINGAUTHORITY
SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDREW FROM THE SENTENCING LIMITATION PORTION OF THE
PRETRIAL
AGREEMENT BASED ON PRETRIAL MISCONDUCT.

Briefs
will be filed under Rule 25.

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

No.
07-0529/AF.U.S. v. Jesse E.
MILLER.CCA S31229.*

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

No.
07-0700/AR.U.S. v. Jay C.
QUICKSALL.CCA 20060179.

MANDATES ISSUED

No.
05-0139/MC.U.S. v. Gerald R.
PFLUEGER III.CCA 200400213.

No.
06-0881/MC.U.S. v. Todd E.
JAMESON.CCA 200401438.

No.
06-0943/NA.U.S. v. Malcolm M.
MACK.CCA 200400133.

No.
07-0002/AR.U.S. v. Alaa E.
ALBAAJ.CCA 20000121.

No.
07-0084/MC.U.S. v. Deric B.
HOLLINGS.CCA 200500497.

No.
07-0093/AR.U.S. v. James H.
FOERSTER.CCA 20040236.

________________________

* It is directed
that the promulgating
order be corrected to include the Additional Charge and Specification
of
wrongful possession of drug paraphernalia, in violation of Article 134,
UCMJ,
and the plea of guilty and finding of guilty.

No.
06-0934/NA.U.S. v. Walter S.
STEVENSON.CCA 200301272.Appellant's
second motion to extend time to file granted, up to and including July 19, 2007,
and no further extension of time will be granted in
this case.

No.
07-0096/AR.U.S. v. Robert J.
MEDINA.CCA 20040327.On
consideration of Appellant's third motion to
extend time to
file a brief, it is ordered that in view of appellate defense counsel’s
emergency medical treatment and ongoing health complications, said
motion is
hereby granted, up to and including
July 25, 2007, and no further
extension of time will be granted in this case.

No.
07-0114/AR.U.S. v. Anthony L.
REED.CCA 20030921.Appellant's
motion to extend time to file
brief granted, but only up to and
including July 31, 2007, and absent
extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be
granted in
this case.

No.
07-0199/AR.U.S. v. Joshua P.
NAVRESTAD.CCA 20030335.Appellant's
motion to extend time to file a
brief granted, up to and including
July 27, 2007, and absent
extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be
granted in
this case.

No.
07-0229/NA.U.S. v. Laprie D.
TOWNSEND.CCA 200501197.Appellant's
motion to extend time to file
brief granted, but only up to and
including August 14, 2007, and absent
extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be
granted in
this case.

No.
07-0628/AF.U.S. v. Rinney J.
FUJIWARA.CCA 36124.Appellant's
motion to extend time to file the
supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to August 10,
2007.

_______________________

* It is directed
that the promulgating
order be corrected to include the date on which sentence was adjudged
as
required by Rule for Courts-Martial 1114(c)(2).

** It is directed
that the promulgating
order be corrected to reflect indecent assault in Specification 2,
Charge III,
vice assault and battery.

UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY
JOURNAL

No.
07-189

Tuesday,
July 10, 2007

APPEALS - SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS

No. 07-0539/MC.U.S. v. William
C. RICHARDSON.CCA 200602445.On consideration of the petition for grant of
review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of
Criminal
Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted, and that
the
decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal
Appeals is
affirmed. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW.]

No.
07-0522/MC.U.S. v. James R.
AUSTIN.CCA 200500132.Appellant's
second motion to extend time to file the
supplement to the
petition for grant of review granted, up
to and including July 24, 2007, and absent
extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time
will be granted in this case.

No.
07-0173/AR.U.S. v. Darnyell R.
RHOADES.CCA 20040109.Appellant's
motion to extend time to file
brief granted, but only up to and
including July 23, 2007, and absent
extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be
granted in
this case.

No.
07-0617/AR.U.S. v. Jay S.
BACOLOD.CCA 20040780.Appellant's
motion to extend time to file the
supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to August 6, 2007 .

No.
07-0619/AR.U.S. v. Jason J.
BURKOS.CCA 20041256.Appellant's
motion to extend time to file the
supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to August 6,
2007.

UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY
JOURNAL

No.
07-186

Thursday,
July 5, 2007

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED

No.
07-0677/AF.U.S. v. Rocky L.
BROCK.CCA S31084.

UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY
JOURNAL

No.
07-185

Tuesday,
July 3, 2007

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED

No.
07-0676/MC.U.S. v. Noah J.
KRAMER.CCA 200602395.

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

No.
07-0105/NA.U.S. v. Esteban
FALCON.CCA 200401483.Appellant's
motion to extend time to file a
brief granted, but only up to and
including July 20, 2007, and absent
extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be
granted in
this case.

No.
07-0476/NA.U.S. v. Audley G.
EVANS, II.CCA 200600806.Appellant's
third motion to extend time to file the
supplement to the
petition for grant of review granted, up
to and including August 6, 2007, and absent a
further showing of extraordinary circumstances, no further
extension of time will be granted in this case.

No.
07-0523/NA.U.S. v. Richard K.
CORDLE.CCA 200600570.Appellant's
second motion for extension of time to file the
supplement
to the petition for grant of review granted, up to and
including July 12, 2007, and absent
extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time
will be granted in this case.

No.
07-0604/AR.U.S. v. Micah E.
MITCHELL.CCA 20060493.Appellant's
motion to extend time to file the
supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to July 30, 2007.

No.
07-0614/AR.U.S. v. Ryan P. MOORE.CCA 20060340.Appellant's
motion to extend time to file the
supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to July 31, 2007.

No.
07-0621/AR.U.S. v. Jimmy W.
HIXENBAUGH.CCA 20060433.Appellant's
motion to extend time to file the
supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to July 31, 2007.